Matt, we had some discussions in the past and the conclusion was to try to avoid using Log4j2 as a name. It isn't clear to me why Log4jLogger is a problem since it is in a different package than what SLF4J provides.

Ralph Goers
added a comment - 30/Mar/14 05:52 Matt, we had some discussions in the past and the conclusion was to try to avoid using Log4j2 as a name. It isn't clear to me why Log4jLogger is a problem since it is in a different package than what SLF4J provides.

Might as well go with Log4j2Logger. I like the org.apache.logging.slf4j namespace as the org.apache.logging.log4j.slf4j looks more appropriate to put the log4j-to-slf4j classes (to match org.apache.logging.log4j.core).

Matt Sicker
added a comment - 29/Mar/14 21:31 Too bad SLF4J already took Log4jLogger.
Might as well go with Log4j2Logger. I like the org.apache.logging.slf4j namespace as the org.apache.logging.log4j.slf4j looks more appropriate to put the log4j-to-slf4j classes (to match org.apache.logging.log4j.core ).

If it is simpler to keep them all in one place, no problem.
But then it would be nice to change the class name (to something like Log4j2Logger or Log4j2LoggerAdapter, whatever).
Main thing is to be able to identify who is talking "from under" slf4j

Mihai Nita
added a comment - 08/Mar/14 23:49 If it is simpler to keep them all in one place, no problem.
But then it would be nice to change the class name (to something like Log4j2Logger or Log4j2LoggerAdapter, whatever).
Main thing is to be able to identify who is talking "from under" slf4j
Thank you,
Mihai

SLF4J requires that the implementation provide classes in the org.slf4j namespace (StaticLoggerBinder, StaticMarkerBinder and StaticMDCBinder). The other classes could possibly move to the org.apache.logging.slf4j (or org.apache.logging.log4j.slf4j) package if you like. Since the org.slf4j package had to exist it seemed easier to just co-locate the implementation code with the binder classes.

Ralph Goers
added a comment - 08/Mar/14 22:14 SLF4J requires that the implementation provide classes in the org.slf4j namespace (StaticLoggerBinder, StaticMarkerBinder and StaticMDCBinder). The other classes could possibly move to the org.apache.logging.slf4j (or org.apache.logging.log4j.slf4j) package if you like. Since the org.slf4j package had to exist it seemed easier to just co-locate the implementation code with the binder classes.

Matt Sicker
added a comment - 08/Mar/14 21:44 I'm wondering why we even placed Log4j classes in the org.slf4j namespace. Doesn't make much sense other than access to hidden APIs (which is generally not cool).